From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17175 invoked by alias); 27 May 2011 17:59:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 17167 invoked by uid 22791); 27 May 2011 17:59:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:58:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 16845 invoked from network); 27 May 2011 17:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 27 May 2011 17:58:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ping: Re: PATCH : allow to set length of hw watchpoints (e.g. for Valgrind gdbserver) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Tom Tromey , Yao Qi References: <4DDF196F.5010202@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105271858.53944.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 On Friday 27 May 2011 18:53:19, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: > > Yao> Maybe, we need a new target `remote-valgrind' here, and move your > Yao> stuff there. > > We discussed this a bit (last year?), but Pedro was against adding a new > target. I don't recall why; I would like to know though. It was in a different context (some target where endianess matters depending on whether you're reading code or something else), but the reasons are the same. There's no need for one, and it adds to user confusion, and IDE complication. If the remote target needs to behave differently against some remote stub, that calls for the remote end giving gdb enough information for gdb to adjust itself automatically. I can't say I understand why was that being proposed in this case? What is the patch breaking? -- Pedro Alves